Anjana Gopinath
Content Writer at Law Colloquy
1. Apex Court Issues Reminder to HCs; States Delay in Delivery of Reasoned Justice Violates Fundamental Right to Life
The Apex Court has issued reminders to the High Courts stating that the delay in delivery of judgments is a violation of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This was made by a Bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy while considering an appeal filed against a Bombay High Court order.
2. Advocate Files Application Before SC Seeking Early Hearing of Pleas Challenging Changes Made to Article 370
Advocate Shakir Shabir filed an application stating that the Respondents are continually proceeding ahead with further changes in laws concerning the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, which has now been split into two distinct UTs of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
3. Consumer Complaint by Allottee Against Builder Not Barred by RERA Act: SC
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran has held that a complaint before the Consumer For a by allottees against builders is not barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This was held in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni.
4. Any Amount of Evidence Will Not Help Party in Civil Suit in the Absence of Pleading: SC
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party in a civil suit. The views are of a bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah in the case of Biraji @ Brijraji v. Surya Pratap.
5. Homebuyer’s Entitlement to Start from Date of Agreement and Not RERA Registration: SC
A Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran held that period of allotment of flat to a homebuyer has to be reckoned from the date of the buyer agreement and not from the date of registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This observation was made in the case titled as M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Another.
6. Finding of Guilt Cannot Be Based Solely on Refusal to Undergo Identification Parade: SC
The Supreme Court, while acquitting a murder accused observed that the finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo identification parade. This observation was made by Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee in the case titled as Rajesh @ Sarkari v. State of Haryana.
7. Madras HC Suggests Death Penalty for Corruption Like in China, North Korea etc.
The Madras HC Bench comprising of Justices N Kirubakaran and B Pugalendhi opined that the Central Government should consider imposing death penalty as punishment for corruption like those done in China, North Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and Morocco. The observation was made after the Court noted that people are being compelled to accept corruption as normal.
8. Powers U/s 114 CPC Cannot be Exercised as an Inherent or Appellate Power: SC
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah observed that the powers of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be exercised as an inherent power or an appellate power. This was made in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) v. Vinod Kumar Rawat.
9. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines on Payment of Maintenance in Matrimonial Matters
A Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Indu Malhotra and R Subhash Reddy held that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing of the application for maintenance. The Bench also held the following:
i. Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
ii. It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose previous proceeding and orders passed therein;
iii. If the order passed in previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
Additionally, the court also directed that both parties in maintenance cases shall file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities.
10. Time Limit Stipulation for District Magistrates to Deliver Possession of Secured Asset is Not Mandator: SC in SARFAESI case
The Apex Court bench comprising of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi held that time limit stipulation under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act mandating District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset, is a directory and not mandatory and that the inability to take possession within time limit does not render the District Magistrate Functus Officio.
